SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Briefing on SAHRC report of a Hearing into the challenges affecting the Land Restitution process in South Africa to the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development Wednesday, 19 November 2014 Commissioner Mohamed Shafie Ameermia

Contents Introduction and Background Summary of Proceedings Legal Framework: Land Reform and Land Rights Procedures of the SAHRC Hearing: – Composition of panel – Terms of Reference – Nature and Structure of Proceedings Findings 2

Introduction and Background: What propelled the hearings? SAHRC regularly receives complaints and queries relating to land restitution and broader section 25 rights. Issue of 1998 deadline identified as concern, but also other challenges that have made resolution of existing claims difficult and/or severely delayed. SAHRC view: Besides redress and accountability issues, land restitution process is also aimed at progressive realisation of socio-economic rights. SAHRC acknowledges process has moved very slowly with regard to existing land claims, and remains beset by challenges that shadow desired effect of equitable redress and socio-economic empowerment. Given the above, and in the interests of the SAHRC’s ability to fulfil mandate, there was a need for a holistic view of these challenges to be attained. November and December 2013: Convened investigative hearing in terms of section 9(1)(c) of the HRC Act, 54 of 1994 on systemic challenges affecting the land restitution process in South Africa. 3

Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill/Act Although issue of exclusion of claims that came about through the 1998 lodgement cut-off is one of the matters raised with the SAHRC that may be addressed through the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act (passed in February 2014), this issue was not intended to form the central part of the investigative hearing. Instead the hearing aimed to obtain a better understanding of why existing claims remain unresolved nearly two decades after the Act became law. However, a number of the submissions did centre on the potential implications of the re-opening of the claims lodgement process. The decision by the President to re-open the land claims for a further five years, from 30 June 2014 to 30 June 2019 constitutes an important step to enable people who were unable or inadequately prepared to present their claims prior to the 1998 deadline for submissions. However, the Commission is of the view that in order to address and remedy the land restitution process in South Africa, it is necessary to deal with the challenges identified over the past 20 years; and not to depend on legislative changes that fail to address issues that have been identified as needing to be remedied. 4

Summary of Proceedings Inquisitorial hearing requesting national Departments and other parties having a direct relationship to the State’s implementation of the land restitution process make submissions to the SAHRC. These included Departments mandated to initiate or implement South Africa’s integrated rural development programme, provide equitable redress to victims of racially motivated land dispossession, resolve restitution claims and provide post-settlement support. Parties were also requested to present documentation to assist SAHRC to establish the extent of the challenges relating to the land restitution process. In part, the decision by certain parties to focus on the then Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill (now Act 15 of 2014) enabled the panel to make findings that related to whether the proposed amendments would address current challenges and shortcomings. 5

Summary of proceedings (2) The submissions requested from the parties were set out in the issues for discussion. These included requests for data on: – The mandate of the relevant body and its role in terms of land restitution; – The challenges experienced by that body in relation to land restitution; – The steps taken to address such challenges; – How the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) relates to the Commission for Restitution of Land Rights in terms of the monetary compensation awarded for land restitution; – The number of finalised claims that involved compensation, and the number that involved land being returned; – The manner in which the Commission for Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) deals with a situation when a claim is under review that is on a piece of land that is being disposed of for other developments; – The number of claims that are on state land 6

NATIONAL: – The Constitution (Section 25 - while the Constitution supports land reform, the right to own property is also protected. Any expropriation needs to take account of the current use, the history, the value, the extent of direct state investment and subsidy, beneficial capital improvement and the purpose of the expropriation). – The 1997 White Paper on South African Land Policy – Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 (amended at the end of 1998) – Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act 15 of 2014 (reopens lodgement period to 30 June 2019) 7 Legal Framework: Land Reform and Land Restitution

INTERNATIONAL Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): Drops the reference to property rights; intention of ICESCR is to ensure protection of economic, social and cultural rights to citizens of member states UN declarations more specific to land include Declaration on Social Progress 1969, which recognises the social function of property, including land, and calls for forms of land ownership that ensure equal rights to property for all UN specialised agencies, FAO and the ILO have given most attention to land rights issues, in either binding conventions or nonbinding declarations The ILO’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169 of 1989 is a key instrument in the evolution of concepts of land rights in international law The First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights states: No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society...No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest and in the cases and according to the forms of established law 8 Legal Framework: Land Reform and Land Restitution (2)

REGIONAL Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantees the right to property Article 21 states that: “1) All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people be deprived of it. 2) In case of spoliation the dispossessed people shall have the right to the lawful recovery of its property as well as to an adequate compensation.” These provisions apply to ownership of land as well as security of tenure of land. 9 Legal Framework: Land Reform and Land Restitution (3)

South African Case Law Richtersveld and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another (LCC151/98) [2001] ZALCC 34 (6 August 2001) Kranspoort Community: in re Farm Kranspoort 48 LS Baphiring v Uys and Others LCC64/98 Sophiatown matter (settled administratively) 10 Legal Framework: Land Reform and Land Restitution (4)

Procedures of the SAHRC Hearing 1)Respondents: Oral and written submissions were received from representatives of: – The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform – The Commission for Restitution of Land Rights – The Department of Public Works – The Chief Surveyor General – The Land Rights Management Facility The SAHRC also sought the inputs of the Land Claims Court – Acting Judge President Yasmin Meer participated in the hearing and contributed to the issues for discussion. 11

Procedures of the SAHRC Hearing (2) 2) Composition of Hearing Panel Commissioner Janet Love (Chairperson of the Panel) Commissioner Lindiwe Mokate (Panellist) Advocate Patric Mtshaulana (Panellist) 3)Terms of Reference To receive information and to hear evidence from the respondents and other relevant parties relating to the systemic challenges affecting the land restitution process in South Africa; To analyse evidence brought before the panel; To make appropriate findings; To enable the Commission to make recommendations. 12

Procedures of the SAHRC Hearing (3) The respondents were obliged to make written submissions as well as oral presentations. Each respondent had 1 hour to address the issues for discussion. The panel could then pose a series of questions, seek clarity or further information arising from the submissions. Before making submissions, respondents were invited to take an oath or affirmation in the manner of their choosing. 13

Findings The hearings revealed a number of challenges related to addressing the challenges affecting land restitution in SA including: – under-staffing; – lack of technical skills; and – inadequate research capacity The investigative hearing also revealed that while there is some understanding by all of the respondents in land restitution matters of their roles and responsibilities, guided by their core mandates, the role of the CRLR is less clear. The SAHRC is concerned that systemic challenges affecting the land restitution process may be partly as a result of the current set-up (and subsequent understanding) of the CRLR’s relationship to the DRDLR. The DRDLR submitted that the CRLR is one of its branches or units. The DRDLR deferred a number of the questions posed to it by the SAHRC to the CRLR, explaining that the CRLR would be better placed to address such question given that it was a unit of the DRDLR. This is a concern for the SAHRC as it suggests that the CRLR will not construct its work in a manner that is impartial to and independent of the DRDLR. 14

Findings (2) DRDLR and CRLR identified poor research methodology that informed the land claims. While the CRLR acknowledged difficulties with regard to how the existing claims have been recorded and captured in a number of different ways over time and problems that have occurred as a result of documents and files being lost, there was no indication of how the CRLR intends to deal with these problems. 15

Findings (3) The issue of the losses that communities face from their exclusion from the benefits of the mineral resources in and under their land, which have also rendered their surface rights to the land impossible, is also something that needs to be more clearly addressed. It does not seem right that geographic dispossession results today in a perpetuation of wealth exclusion in a democratic South Africa. To this extent, the characterisation of the restitution process by the CRLR submitted during the investigative hearing as a “political problem” has validity. However, the restitution process is also a judicial one and cannot be contingent on departmental policies that undermine the need for just and equitable and remedy of past rights violations as envisaged in the Constitution. 16

Findings (4) The backlog of unresolved restitution claims raises concerns that claims filed under the new restitution period might further undermine the fulfillment of existing claims. Significant challenges in relation to the calculations and determination of the value of land from which individuals and communities were historically dispossessed, but which today have to be seen in the context of subsequent developments and uses. 17

Findings (5) SAHRC is concerned at the absence of capacity with the Chief Surveyor General to do historical research work and, if there is a proposal to recommend resettlement, to provide a proper survey of the land and complete register of all land owned by different spheres of government and parastatals, to help the Department and community develop plans for the future given the fact that this comes two decades into our democracy. 18

Findings (6) The SAHRC is also concerned about the fact that the cadastral surveys of million hectares of land have not been undertaken and the plans and resources necessary for this do not appear to be in place. Sub-divisions and title deeds have not been finalized and registered. This is particularly relevant in cases when the same land is subject to competing claims – a phenomenon that the SAHRC believes will increase now that the lodgment of claims has been reopened. 19

Findings (7) The Commission understands that the CRLR is tasked with facilitating the policies of the state in relation to restitution, acting first to secure the interests of those whose lives were uprooted and destroyed through discriminatory regimes of colonialism and apartheid. It is the Commission’s view that these interests will not at all times be the same as the DRDLR, and thus is concerned that in the current set-up this is unclear and that the CRLR defers to the DRDLR priorities in relation to the settlement of claims and the post-settlement arrangements which the CRLR ought to confirm and ensure that there are arrangements in place to support prior to the finalisation of the settlement. 20

Findings (8) The Commission remains concerned that these systemic challenges and gaps remain unresolved; and that, although the number of outstanding claims is not reliable as the system of counting has changed so often, thousands of people have been waiting for almost two decades to have their matters dealt with. Some documents appear to have been lost and there is also no clarity about how the existing claimants will not be prejudiced by legislative amendments. 21

Findings (9) Although not a key focus area of the investigative hearing, the SAHRC has concerns with the Land Restitution Amendment Act 15 of 2014 as they relate to existing claims. The additional period for submission of claims may create a possible resurgence of new land claims, with the DRDLR expecting approximately 397,000 claims. The backlog of unresolved restitution claims raises concerns that claims filed under the new restitution period might further undermine the fulfilment of existing claims – even those that are already approved but where the land titles and development moneys have not yet been handed over. The Act will also open the space for claims, for example by traditional leaders, which may be in conflict with existing claims by other community-constituted structures. In addition, the Act intends to ban Communal Property Institution from owning redistributed land. This removes an option to existing claimants without their concurrence. 22

Concluding Remarks The Commission is satisfied that the formalities prescribed in Article 26 (1)(3) of the SAHRC Complaints Handling Procedure have been complied with. It is the sincere hope of the Commission that this investigation and its findings will be of assistance in resolving some of the systemic challenges affecting the land restitution process in South Africa. The Commission will follow up with all parties in respect of whom recommendations were made, to facilitate their implementation. 23

The South African Human Rights Commission